For Your Data Mattei V. Hopper Representative Brief
November 07, 2020
Edit
Mattei v. Hopper case brief summary
51 Cal.2d 119
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff developer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California), which concluded that an understanding betwixt the developer together with accused landowner requiring the landowner to bring her existent holding to the developer was illusory together with lacking inwards mutuality.
OVERVIEW:
-The developer planned to prepare a shopping midpoint following to the landowner's property.
-After unsuccessful negotiations, the landowner submitted an offer, which the developer accepted.
-The parties' signed a deposit receipt form, requiring buy inside 120 days dependent area to obtaining leases satisfactory to the developer.
-The developer paid the deposit.
-Prior to the buy date, the developer was notified the landowner would non sell the property.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that:
(1) the linguistic communication conditioning the developer's functioning on the obtaining of satisfactory leases was a "satisfaction" clause,
(2) a valid contract arose betwixt the parties,
(3) the deposit receipt was non illusory or lacking inwards mutuality of obligation because it contained a "satisfaction" clause,
(4) the measure for evaluating the developer's satisfaction was that he practise his judgment inwards proficient faith,
(5) the measure of the reasonable somebody did non apply where the functioning involved a affair dependent on judgment, and
(6) whatever cases departing from the established rules employing the criterion of proficient organized faith inwards upholding "satisfaction" clauses dependent on the practise of judgment were disapproved.
ANALYSIS:
-For the contract to bind either part, both must have got assumed roughly legal obligations. Without this mutuality of obligation, the understanding lacks consideration together with no enforceable contract exists.
-Whether these problems are couched inwards price of mutuality of obligation or the illusory nature of a promise, the underlying upshot is the same--consideration.
-dissatisfaction cannot move claimed arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously...and the measure of the reasonable somebody is used inwards determining whether satisfaction has been received.
(fancy, taste, or judgement)
-A hope conditional upon the promisor’s satisfaction is non illusory since it agency to a greater extent than than that validity of the functioning is to depend on the arbitrary pick of the promisor. His facial expression of dissatisfaction is non conclusive. That may exhibit alone that he has acquire dissatisfied alongside the contract; he must move dissatisfied alongside the performance, every bit a functioning of the contract, together with his dissatisfaction must move genuine.
-Contract non illusory nor lacking inwards mutuality of obligation because the parties inserted a provision inwards their contract making Pl.’s functioning dependent on his satisfaction alongside the leases to move obtained past times him.
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the judgment.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the acme grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
51 Cal.2d 119
SYNOPSIS: Plaintiff developer sought review of a judgment from the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California), which concluded that an understanding betwixt the developer together with accused landowner requiring the landowner to bring her existent holding to the developer was illusory together with lacking inwards mutuality.
OVERVIEW:
-The developer planned to prepare a shopping midpoint following to the landowner's property.
-After unsuccessful negotiations, the landowner submitted an offer, which the developer accepted.
-The parties' signed a deposit receipt form, requiring buy inside 120 days dependent area to obtaining leases satisfactory to the developer.
-The developer paid the deposit.
-Prior to the buy date, the developer was notified the landowner would non sell the property.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that:
(1) the linguistic communication conditioning the developer's functioning on the obtaining of satisfactory leases was a "satisfaction" clause,
(2) a valid contract arose betwixt the parties,
(3) the deposit receipt was non illusory or lacking inwards mutuality of obligation because it contained a "satisfaction" clause,
(4) the measure for evaluating the developer's satisfaction was that he practise his judgment inwards proficient faith,
(5) the measure of the reasonable somebody did non apply where the functioning involved a affair dependent on judgment, and
(6) whatever cases departing from the established rules employing the criterion of proficient organized faith inwards upholding "satisfaction" clauses dependent on the practise of judgment were disapproved.
ANALYSIS:
-For the contract to bind either part, both must have got assumed roughly legal obligations. Without this mutuality of obligation, the understanding lacks consideration together with no enforceable contract exists.
-Whether these problems are couched inwards price of mutuality of obligation or the illusory nature of a promise, the underlying upshot is the same--consideration.
-dissatisfaction cannot move claimed arbitrarily, unreasonably, or capriciously...and the measure of the reasonable somebody is used inwards determining whether satisfaction has been received.
(fancy, taste, or judgement)
-A hope conditional upon the promisor’s satisfaction is non illusory since it agency to a greater extent than than that validity of the functioning is to depend on the arbitrary pick of the promisor. His facial expression of dissatisfaction is non conclusive. That may exhibit alone that he has acquire dissatisfied alongside the contract; he must move dissatisfied alongside the performance, every bit a functioning of the contract, together with his dissatisfaction must move genuine.
-Contract non illusory nor lacking inwards mutuality of obligation because the parties inserted a provision inwards their contract making Pl.’s functioning dependent on his satisfaction alongside the leases to move obtained past times him.
OUTCOME: The courtroom reversed the judgment.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the acme grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?